Should We Chase The&nbspAlgorithm?

You might not be surprised to hear that I’ve been a little obsessedwiththeGooglealgorithm this past year. While many SEOs and business owners share that obsession, others have asked questions like “Why don’t you stop chasing Google and focus on 'real' marketing?” It’s an honest question, and I think it’s a fair one. I’d like to try to answer it and to explain why I think understanding the algorithm is an essential part of a well-rounded online marketing campaign going forward into 2013.

Businesses Are Still at Risk

In the past two years, the Panda and Penguin updates have hit hard. For some people, they hit in a very real and personal way. I’ve seen small business owners lose everything, including their homes. I’m not here to judge Google – I understand their reasoning and even support some of it. Maybe more than that, I try to be realistic about Google’s goals and motivations. If I have to pick a side, though, I’ve been in the trenches with small businesses too long to abandon them now. If information can save you from losing everything, then I want you to have that information.

Offense + Defense = Victory

There’s been a big push toward content marketing and the broader world of #RCS (“Real Company Sh*t”, as coined by Wil Reynolds). I am 100% in favor of this movement. I believe in content marketing and in building a real brand and a product people want. There’s an implication, though, that we have to pick one or the other – either we’re content marketers or we’re algo chasers. To me, that’s like saying your team can only play offense or defense. You can have the best rushing and passing stats in the league, but you’re going to get crushed if you leave the field empty when the other team has the ball.

I want you to diversify beyond Google – if you’ve got 60%+ of your customers coming from organic search on Google, you’re in real danger of losing everything. You need to think more broadly about marketing, but you also need to protect yourself. If #RCS is your offense, then understanding the algorithm is your defense. You can have both.

People Clearly Want to Know

When we started building the algorithm history, it was honestly out of curiosity more than anything. I knew people would be interested, but I was amazed at the response. Here’s a traffic graph (unique pageviews) for 2012 through the end of October:

Keep in mind that the page launched in 2011. That first spike is Penguin, but the interest and traffic not only haven’t let up – they’ve increased. The page passed the 250K unique pageview mark in October, and is still growing strong. We’re chasing the algorithm because every piece of data I have says that you want us to.

The Big Picture Matters

You know how we traditionally measure algorithm updates? We use a metric called Aggregate Panic. If enough webmasters wake up, see their rankings change, and panic, we know there’s probably been an update. Sadly, that’s not really a joke.

I’m learning that probably the toughest question in search is “What’s normal?” – if we can’t understand what a normal day looks like, we’ll never be able to pinpoint an unusual one. On an individual level, I think this question translates to “Was it me, or was it Google?” Search is a highly dynamic environment, and separating out the algorithm from targeted actions (e.g. penalties and filters), competitive changes, our own SEO efforts, and seasonality is incredibly tough. The more we know about the algorithm, the better we understand how our own data fits into the big picture.

Speculation Runs Rampant

There’s a wrong way to chase the algorithm, and we see it every day. The wrong way is to notice something changed, panic, and start building a bomb shelter while Tweeting about how Google is going to harvest your kidneys while you sleep if you leave a Google+ Hangout open. In all seriousness, we all have our pet theories, but it’s rare that they get put to the test. I’d like to see us evolve from chasing the algorithm to stalking it, and that means being methodical, collecting data, and asking questions that can be answered with that data.

Transparent is The New Black

Transparency is fashionable, and Google has put out a lot more public information in 2012, from Tweets about query impact to their monthly search quality highlights. While I think these public statements take Google real time and effort, and I don’t think they’re deliberately trying to mislead us, I do think we have to be careful how eagerly we accept these “gifts”. The monthly highlights are packed full of information, but it comes in the form of statements like:

We know this update is important, because it has an ID number and a code name. Unfortunately, you could basically translate it to this:

#90210 [project “Turkey Giblets”] We made some stuff better.

…and you’d have learned just as much as you did from the original. I’m not bashing Google’s intent, because I honestly don’t know what their intent is. I’m worried, though. I’m worried that we’re so happy to have this information that we’re going to stop digging for our own data. If you want to listen to the wizard, that’s your business. I’d rather poke the curtain.

Google Controls Far Too Much

This one’s a little out there, and it goes well beyond SEO. Depending on who you ask, Google may control as much as 80% of the search market. Search isn’t just about finding a new pizza place or even customers finding your business. Search is our portal to the largest archive of human knowledge we’ve ever had – the internet. No social site accesses a full crawl of the web. Only the major search engines do it, and Google may be getting 4 out of every 5 of those searches. Google is shaping how we work, how we play, and even how we think, and they’re making more than $40,000,000,000 a year doing it. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I think we need to fight for all the transparency we can get. Too much is at stake if we let the algorithm become a black box.

Let’s Be Careful Out There

There’s a fine line between healthy skepticism and paranoia. I hope that the lessons that a handful of us learn by chasing the algorithm let you sleep a little better at night and do the jobs you need to do. If you see me at a conference and say “I stopped chasing the algorithm and grew my business!”, I’ll say “Congratulations!” and buy you a beer. Until then, keep your eyes open and we’ll keep doing what we do.

This post is timely and in line with my experience. A few months ago I stopped "chasing the algorithm" and focused on only #RCS, and since then we've moved from the #1 spot to the #5 spot. It's truly sad that Google tries to convince us to stop doing SEO altogether, but punishes us for it when we "obey." I'm sure that's not everyone's experience, but it has been mine.

UnderRugSwept, I can't agree more to what you say... I've been juggling with the idea of fighting back to Google in some kind of way for a while, but can only feel like we're losing battle...

I'm a Resident Evil fan, and altough I love Google, I'm starting to feel it's getting just like an evil Umbrella Corporation!! Google is omnipresent on the Web, but is also starting to get in the "real world"... Think Android, Samsung...

I don't feel it's not right, but I feel something's wrong about it!

Doesn't Uncle Ben said "With great power comes, great responsability"?

Please understand that I think they work hand-in-hand and that RCS is fundamental in the long-term. The problem, in the short-term, is that many of us still have too much invested in Google, and too much to lose if the rules change. In the long-term, though, RCS is a path to moving beyond Google. So, don't give up on the long-term view - just make sure you're covering both sides.

Very good to hear that we should definitely be keeping one eye on the algorithm while also creating real enticing content.

My favorite part was this because it speaks to me directly:“Was it me, or was it Google?” Search is a highly dynamic environment, and separating out the algorithm from targeted actions (e.g. penalties and filters), competitive changes, our own SEO efforts, and seasonality is incredibly tough.

With Google refining the algorithm daily now with only occassional huge announcements, it's hard to know on some "normal" day why your rankings drop and whether it was me messing with the development side, my competitors getting stronger, or me not having enough QDF.

Agreed. We're in the process of transitioning from rather spammy linkbuilding to #RCS link attracting. I really do believe it has to be a gradual transition, because the relatively benign spam still works and the #RCS doesn't fully work yet.

I agree with businesses having too much tied up in Google (many people I have worked with included). There is a tough time, especially in online businesses, to diversify your the source of your business. So many companies rely well over 50% on organic search traffic for their business. Creating this live or die scenario with Google can be very troubling when algo changes happen.

I think Dr Pete and many people here are right though that the RCS stuff and attracting business or links through those means are the best long term strategy. While there may not be as many wild gains as in the past, there is surely more longevity built in. I believe many people got caught up in the sprint that was the internet, while it is not settling back down into a marathon

Dr. PeteAs one of your fans I have to say I was surprised when this post ended. That's not bad though. I was expecting more data which, I think, is your point. "I’d like to see us evolve from chasing the algorithm to stalking it, and that means being methodical, collecting data, and asking questions that can be answered with that data."Anyone who has worked with small business has seen the company that hired someone to assist them, thought they were doing the right thing, and ended up with every bad link in the universe coming to their site. They got more traffic as they rose in the rankings and were a bit happy. Because whomever they hired wasn't a true pro, they were shocked when all of a sudden they did not exist in the SERP's; so who is to blame? You could say, "let the buyer beware!", you could blame the "seo expert", or you could blame Google. In the end for that business, it doesn't matter. What matters is what knowledge is necessary to make their business better? I think Will was going down the correct road with the RCS piece and I don't think there is anyone who preaches content more than I do. We are constantly hiring and developing copywriters because we have few clients who have the ability or the bandwidth to do it (content) themselves. But, what is so important is "stalking the algorithm" (and yes I will endeavor to give attribution when I start using that term this morning and wear it out by Monday). We need the data to make informed decisions. We cannot place clients at risk with knee jerk reactions to freakin' zoo animal updates. We must build on what we know while keeping a keen eye toward every piece of quality data and we must test... but, wait, I too have a company to run, clients to assist, new business to attract. So, how in the world am I to get it all done (and I, likely, have a bigger staff than most)? I rely on people like you and the team at SEOmoz among a few others. (Yes, you guys are still my favorites.) So, when you say: "We’re chasing the algorithm because every piece of data I have says that you want us to." I can only say, that is correct. So, my surprise when there was no "data" in your post was a pleasant one. I am glad you understand what many of us need out here if we are to deliver a quality product to a lot of clients who need the help. Yes, it also helps our bottom line because we can deliver results and results convert into referrals.

Business fails due to lack of knowledge. The business owner
thinks SEO is a complete marketing channel not a part of marketing. They don’t
invest on #RCS and think that they can earn without spending a penny. Nonprofessionals
only get a chance due to their lower price level. You should know about the
famous Post of Dr Pete http://www.seomoz.org/blog/dont-like-snake-oil-stop-buying-it where he make his point clear but they are still doing it. If SEO demand something or even suggest some implementations they say this is not you job just rank our website on top.

On other hand I don’t blame small business owner because
they don’t have enough money to spend on marketing so they moved towards some
Carp hat SEOs to ruin their existing business as well.

You are lucky to have clients who know the
importance of RSC and ready to invest but more than 70% SEO does not have
clients like yours. They hire a company who charge under 200K but give results.
Can you believe in doing SEO in 100$/m! Companies are still doing it due to
these non-serious business owners and Google keep rolling out zoo animals.

They only way to save our faces is to educate higher-ups that
there are no hidden doors of success if some still left they won’t stay longer
and some creepy animal block your way. Every time Google role out some Algorithm,
instead of blaming Google start blaming your business owners who discards your
suggestion and running behind hidden doors.

Asif, I just realized your comment was a reply to mine, my apologies. I have to say I think you may have missed my point.First, I believe that the two main reasons for a business to fail are still: lack of adequate capital and poor management, though I do not know which is most to blame.

I think most of your comment was based on this one paragraph (that was not the overall point): Because whomever they hired wasn't a true pro, they were shocked when all of a sudden they did not exist in the SERP's; so who is to blame? You could say, "let the buyer beware!", you could blame the "seo expert", or you could blame Google. In the end for that business, it doesn't matter. What matters is what knowledge is necessary to make their business better?I believe the last sentence is my point and that because that knowledge is important, the analysis that we have provided by virtue of organs like this and others.

I was speaking to where Google makes changes, a business is affected, and has no idea why - they thought they were doing it right. They had hired an "SEO" professional; what happened?You jump to businesses that just want to rank and the rules don't matter to them and that every client I have pays $200K or more. (I will dream of those days.)

Actually, I gave an answer to a post or question a while back where I stated that if you have a client who is trying to get SEO on a budget is not worth having. Some people just want a deal. For those who "just want to rank" we don't do business with them. That is also the reason I left the lead gen business years ago. There are too many companies who want more and more leads and are wanting to break any rule to get them. They are also the ones who you send a hundred leads to and when it comes time to pay they want to say 99 leads were bad and here's a check for the one.

You allude to me blaming Google; I don't believe I did. I realize that many see Google as the big evil, but I don't. I see them as a business with self interest at heart, just like mine or yours. My role is to insure whether Google, Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, etc. that the client is in the best postion to achieve their aims without being exposed.

My comments were driven by businesses that I go to see for some reason and they start telling me they don't understand as they had an SEO pro take care of their site 3 or 6 months ago. I don't think they were just trying to get a cut rate deal, I think they were trying to fix a problem, heard keyword analyses, metatag, etc. and thought they were dealing with a professional. They do not know about algorithms, black hat vs white hat, etc. It is our job as SEO's to educate the business owner as to what SEO is and is not and to what is right or wrong with regard to ranking.

This is something what we think but don't speak in public or write. Definitely we can't ignore search engines, after all more than 1 billion searches people doing on Google only.

The one thing that I don't understand is, a website of small business getting more that 60% business from organic SEO that means they are serving good to those people and people are also happy with their services. That means search engine also suggesting good option to their users. How they become bad in a night? There are definitely spammers hanging there but there are also good player as well and both are going into the crunches at the same time. Recently Google's manual actions and messages are really good and we should appreciate.

In 2012, we webmasters wake up everyday with finger crossed and that is really challenging.

With their monoploy google is controlling our behaviour on web.Like the wpmu.org example who have credit links on the footer and google penalized them for this. You never know what's coming on you? The more google says "go natural". The more they make people think how to optimize and protect your site from penalty. Should i stop commenting with link? Could i be penalized in future for doing x thing?Even if you are not a spammer, you may get penalized. This "may" thing sucks. There must be some kind of transparency in the algo updates and a solution for ones who are penalized without a real cause.

Chasing algorithm is the just matter that how
exactly you work on your website to rank well in search engines. If you work in
legitimate way through quality content and relevance resource which can help
users not to search engines, then believe me it will never let you go down in
search engines. Since the first penguin and panda update we have stopped
chasing them, because we know that what exactly this updates have been looking
in your website. If you serve them exactly what this updates needs then you don’t
need to chase them.

I completely agree with you on that one. You can't really afford to ignore Google completely. As you mentioned they get 80% of the search traffic and no one can afford to not go after that opportunity. But relying too heavily on Google to keep your doors open leaves you very vulnerable to the changing tides. Things are only going to continue to change; are you in a good place to handle it?

Nick and Dr. Pete - Good perspective to maintain! Some watchwords of good business, 'never have more than 50% of your revenue tied up in any one account, or dependent on any one source.' Makes a distinction between intellects focused solely on SEO & Google -VS- broader business considerations including other forms of marketing. SEOmoz's own Joanna Lord just posted on "The Importance of Marketing Analytics" and makes the point that healthy business lies in a more stable, multi-pronged approach and moving beyond the navel-gazing that can result from simply reviewing one's Web Analytics.

Great article Dr. Pete and I love the analogy of offense and defense. I feel like the algorithm chasing and the way that a lot of businesses were hit by the updates is a result of where the industry may have been in the past. I believe that the industry has caught up to real marketing and that is evident with people like Rand preaching real marketing and Wil Reynolds' #RCS talks. I think you nail it with the aforementioned analogy and I believe that marketers should always be well rounded in their ability to create content and marketing initiatives, as well as how the algorithm is treating the activities like link (er relationship) building.

It is a good thing that there are companies like Moz and people like you going to a lot of work to bring information and perspective to the changes that are going on. Now, I have to go back to not chasing the algorithm and growing this business so I can tell you that at the conference in Tampa next week and get that beer! Lol

Great write up, and it honestly did get me thinking about a few things; however, I think there's a big difference between "chasing the algo" vs. "being aware of the algo." I often tell my clients that, if they behave themselves from the get go, then they usually won't have to sweat algo changes because they would be doing things right from the start. However, this is not the same as just ignoring it entirely. There are plenty of instances, usually when I am auditing a client's site or doing follow up work on a previous client, where you still need to be aware of the changes in the algo so you know what could possibly be causing a drop in traffic.However, "chasing the algo" is a whole different animal. This practice is more about keeping one step ahead of Google's changes as a way to take advantage of dodging the Ts & Cs of Google's organic search until they have an algorithmic way of catching you.Panda and Penguin weren't new rules, they were just rules that could now be enforced automatically and with their release, they caught people who were breaking the rules, either intentionally or unintentionally. There were plenty of SEOs out there that were pushing thin content and exact match anchor text, knowing that this wasn't the spirit of the law. Meanwhile, there were plenty of sites out there that had thin content and poor linking that got popped as well. All are sinners in Google's eyes.The difference is in how things are handled after the fall. Those who know they were sinning have the opportunity to say, "well, we knew it would catch up to us some day" and move on vs. claiming some sort of great conspiracy on Google's part. Those that were caught unaware generally just think Google is picking on them, but some of the smarter ones learn that it's a good idea to keep up with what's going on and be proactive about their site.So, let's maybe not "chase the algo," but instead encourage and awareness of its existence in the name of keeping our noses clean.

I'd generally agree with that (and only use "chasing" because it's thrown around so much), but I've become a bit more cynical on one point. While I think we often should see major updates (including Panda and Penguin) coming, there are more and more changes that aren't about ranking quality so much as the overall search experience or Google's goals.

Paid inclusion is a good example - e-commerce sites who have done nothing wrong could suddenly find themselves losing a ton of traffic because Google is making a land-grab. We see it with informational queries a lot. Let's say I built a site featuring movie times in some niche. What happened when Google decided to pull those showtimes directly and show them at the top of the page? Unless I have a broader value proposition and other traffic sources, I just lost a lot of traffic. I didn't break the rules - they just changed. Even 7-result SERPs are causing shake-ups. While Google sees that as an overall quality play, it's not necessarily reflective on any individual site's quality.

This doesn't necessarily negate your point - I don't really want every individual SEO to "chase" the algorithm. I hoping I'm doing it so that other people can do less of it. On the other hand, I don't want people to think "I do white-hat SEO - I'm fine" and then just ignore Google's motivations and updates. I've seen that go terribly wrong.

So far, no one has done it successfully, that I'm aware of. The EU has gone after Google a few times. I think paid inclusion may bring out more of that, but at the end of the day it really depends where they get the content from. If they buy showtimes from a legit source, it sucks for all the other people who have showtimes data, but it's not illegal.

So far, no one has done it successfully, that I'm aware of. The EU has gone after Google a few times. I think paid inclusion may bring out more of that, but at the end of the day it really depends where they get the content from. If they buy showtimes from a legit source, it sucks for all the other people who have showtimes data, but it's not illegal.

The "Google pulling a land grab" is an interesting scenario, but not one that I think is really a "search" or "SEO" thing, but more a good old fashioned business issue. Any time a major player wanders into the yard of someone who had previously been the big fish in a small pond is always disruptive and usually not illegal. I know this sounds harsh, but I have very little sympathy for a company charging for something that it had given away for free for years. Companies are in the business to make money and this kind of stuff should be expected and planned for in the business model. If a company was majorly affected by Google charging for product listings, it was a weak model to start with and probably needed to be started with a big caveat of "SHOULD Google start charging, then we need to..." and pray that they were going to take their time and use the extra profit to build up the company elsewhere.But I realize, this might just be a me thing... When Netflix started charing for it's streaming service and the world tried to make it sound like they were raising their prices, I was the one going, "no, they are just charging you for something that they gave away for free in the beginning while they sorted it all out..."Anyway, don't want to wander off topic too much here, but solid points, great piece.

It's been seriously reassuring to know that you've 'had our backs' this year. There have been with some excellent articles, analyses and insights in recent months resulting from your efforts with MozCast (and the data powering it).

Great article here, too - it doesn't surprise me one bit to see the traffic graph you posted. We've personally been hungrier than ever for algorithm info and insight, whilst simultaneously distancing ourselves from "chasing" (or is it "running from") the algo when it comes to tactics and strategy.

Dr. Pete makes a great point in his response around "Paid inclusion is a good example - e-commerce sites who have done nothing wrong could suddenly find themselves losing a ton of traffic because Google is making a land-grab."I am assuming most have seen the Scroogled ad by Bing. They are going after Google for the paid listings in Shopping search. If you haven't its worth a peak. Seems Bing is trying to make a push around what Google is doing. http://scroogled.com/#first

This article was a great reminder as to why I love SEO and online marketing in general. I got the chills after reading this:

"I’d like to see us evolve from chasing the algorithm to stalking it, and
that means being methodical, collecting data, and asking questions that
can be answered with that data."

Basically, I love you.

I seriously thought SEOmoz was headed in a different direction there for a minute. Hopping on the "I'm better than you because I don't chase the algorithm and do real marketing" bandwagon, but clearly that is not the case. The two can co-exists. After all, we all want to be specialists in SEO right? So why not act like it!!!

Here are a few tests I want to run in 2013. If anyone would like to help out with time / resources / insight please please send me a PM:

1. Can a website improve its rankings by simply having its brand name (domain) mentioned on several other high authority sites even when no link is given?

2. Can a website improve its rankings by having ONLY no-followed backlinks? This one interests me since almost everything seems to be against the guidelines nowadays.

3. Do links from PRweb really not make a difference as Matt Cutts Suggests?

Doing these tests while continuously trying to improve my 'offense' will definitely make for another exciting year in this business. Finally got around to giving Google + a real shot, so I'm off to a good start I think.

Good Post. "I’ve seen small business owners lose everything, including their homes...." Interesting. Honestly, if Google is anyone's #1 main source of revenue to the point where the company relies on organic Google traffic to pay the majority of the bills there is a problem. Obviously organic traffic is extremely important but companies need to focus on a multi-channel marketing approach and retention. Don't put all your eggs in one basket and pay some attention to acquired customers. Maybe these small businesses wouldn't lose their homes over a Google algorithm change and maybe their wouldn't be so much paranoia.

Amen Scott,I just ran numbers on a brand new brand and niche company we launched in January of 2012. Already we have clear data showing us that the Average Order Value of a returning customer is 3 times the Average Order of a new customer. Traditional marketers have always known that the most valuable customers you have are the ones you already have. This is exactly why I say that there is happening a convergence of SEO and traditional marketing. Now, it's just plain old SEM.Dana

I like your point that " if you’ve got 60%+ of your customers coming from organic search on Google, you’re in real danger of losing everything." its became really true.. for many webmasters after Google updates they just lost their clients and clients lost their online business.

I am totally agree with you that, you need to open your eyes for every updates of Google. I also want to share here that we also find the others ways to get more traffic resources through Social Media and through Branding promotion because even if you are affected by any updates you have other doors from where you can get some potential visitors and business.

In addition, As we all know no one knows Google Algorithm so we have to have keep our eyes on Google updates. Even when we Goggling something need to keep eyes on Google SERPS.

The problem with monopolies is that they are monopolies- its very hard to escape their grip. And as Google gets into the content game as well, it gets even more dangerous - hovering up zagat, airline db etc... Wonder how they square that with diversity, when you own all the diversity. It would be great to see a credible competitor on the horizon. Come on Microsoft - god I cant believe I am rooting for the ex-evil empire.

Well there are two type of marketers. The ignorance is bliss who don't care about how search engines or algos work. And control freaks like you and me for who want to know everything possible and run experiments.

I say to each his own. What you are attempting, has been attempted many times before. I know a few who retired chasing algo (after making enough dough). The only difference is.. You are sharing the data. Which is freaking awesome! And which is one of the reasons I try to read each and every blog post you write.

I may be simple but doesn't chasing the algorithm imply that we're still looking to exploit some sort of gimmicky SEO advantage? If only we knew precisely the number of exact text anchor matches that would trigger a penalty...we could take advantage of it.People that continue to base strategies on algorithm-besting strategies will continue to lose their homes.

"Google is shaping how we work, how we play, and even how we think, and they’re making more than $40,000,000,000 a year doing it. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I think we need to fight for all the transparency we can get. Too much is at stake if we let the algorithm become a black box."Yikes! That's a few more 0's than my annual intake. Great post Dr Pete, I'm totally on board with keeping Google accountable.

If you look at the way people would cheat the system, you would see a clear example as to why chasing doesn't work. When you chase, you paint yourself into a corner that is difficult to escape. However, when you become transparent and authentic, you get pulled out from that corner and have the opportunity to stand in the sun.

I think the algo updates are great for legit SEOs tbh. I have seen a huge uptick in work this year, even if most of it is "recovery." Work pays the bills. I love that scammy, spammy tricks aren't working as well now. That's the way it goes. Eventually, almost all of the work should be coming to people who do RCS, people doing it "right." I don't mind chasing the algo if it means we get to pick up coins along the way.

I have read the article about Dr. Peter and now I understand that SEO is only a part of business – we cannot fully depend on SEO. I always believe that the trade has wedged to real promoting which is clear with folks like Rand preaching real promoting and Wil Reynolds' #RCS talks. Specially thanks to inform us about it.

"Google is shaping how we work, how we play, and even how we think, and
they’re making more than $40,000,000,000 a year doing it. I’m not a
conspiracy theorist, but I think we need to fight for all the
transparency we can get."

I agree to a certain point. I want to play devil's advocate for a moment and say that if there was a 100% transparency it would be too easy to game the system. I'm sure you understand this and I think your point is that there should be more transparency. Or at least updates that we can understand. I think what Google wants, as Mr. Fishskin once said is, "to rank brands and not websites." So all these company focusing on "real" marketing will eventually be rewarded with great rankings as time goes along. Or so we would like to think..

Great post! I totally agree and I do think that we should focus more on conventional marketing. Chasing an algorithm every second is not getting your product or service sold - that requires hard, traditional work.

It is amazing were all smart people but were putting all our eggs in googles basket. They do control everything and we count on them to be honest and good to us in a manner. However the times have changed and a lot of things that seo's have been counting on to work no longer do if Google devalues exact match domains and only wants big brands to show up on the 1st hit it will change the way people look for companies. If I were to say Acme Corp. check them out people would just type them into Google and expect them to be at the top however now things have changed that is not how it works anymore and my hope is that of people doing the searching will get fed up because you're exactly right it's far more than a simple business or corporation they have the power to feed or keep from us the best source of information that's ever existed. Imagine television having one company control 80% of its information people would riot.

AT&T owned much less of the phone system when they became a monopoly and turned into Baby Bells it seems the Internet is a much different business than any other considering Microsoft's control of the desktop Google's control of search they are monopolies if you can charge AT&T with being a monopoly and successfully proved that is classified as a monopoly Google most certainly is. I doubt the government will do anything helpful unfortunately they seem to want to control the Internet themselves and that would be a huge change for all of us people not just the SEOs wonderful advice and people need to realize that we need to help our customers in any manner we can in order to probably keep getting big deals so think outside the box and do your best.

I wanted to say this as well For folks that don't know me I moved to the United States at age 5 from Germany. When I was growing up and would complain my father would tell me this is the United States "write your Congressman" I was maybe 9 when he was telling us so did not apply but in this case SEOmoz has quite a few members let's all write your congressman I will ask that they look into Google and give them a demonstration of how it affects businesses. This will matter simply because businesses create jobs jobs help the economy and politicians get reelected and elected based on the economy many times they would love to be able to say I created X amount of jobs for whatever company.

You have to love a math/developer/geek guy like Dr. Pete who retains a wicked sense of humor. Harvesting my kidneys, huh? LOL, that totally cracked me up. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if Google already had a virtual version of me somewhere and that they were indeed harvesting my virtual kidneys...but I digress.I really agree with you when you say that being a great SEO isn't just about content creation/curation. It's not all about #RCS either. It's not about chasing the algorithm and it's not just marketing. I would make an argument a bit contrary to the one Tom Critchlow made at the end of Mozcon last year. I would say that SEO is the future of marketing. Marketing directors who don't know a lick about SEO, or anything about Google's algorithm, or are clueless about properly coding a site for SEO...well, they just aren't going to be qualified to be marketing directors any more. The marketing directors of the future are going to be those gifted individuals who can pull all the left-brained and right-brained activities of digital marketing into one team, one package and just totally kill it.Where you once saw SEO's stuck in some closet between the IT and Marketing departments because no one knew what the heck to do with them, you're going to start seeing great SEOs (the ones with great Search Engine Marketing skills over all) move into Director of Marketing positions because they are the ones who will be truly qualified to do the job.Thanks as always for a thought-provoking post!

I highly agree with what you suggested. I stopped creating niche sites that used to make me thousands a month but were never built around a brand. They would always get hit by algo updates and I would constantly have to adapt and fine tune. Once I built a brand I didn't rely on google anymore and things have really turned around for the best.

This same sort of methodology can be applied to our clients as well. Instead of just focusing on SEO we can help them build a reputable brand name online which will in the long run give us sustainable results.

I've always dreamed of a huge enough data set somehow containable and measurable within a system where we could actually "see" the changes in the algo, through some sort of finite element analysis or other PhD powered, crowd sourced exercise.

straight up ...the SEO who is not aware of ALL the algorithms...is a link builder not an SEO. I agree to market on the internet and not understand the role of content, the algos that rank it and the user experience are the people who pretty much ended up in the Google Zoo with the Penguins and Panda's and Goopla's too.

Definitely, it is a great informative post. I also believe that small scale organizations are getting uplifted by SEO. This is only to promote their business, but the brand name is preferred more than quality.

Very thought provoking piece Dr.Pete. You are right in that its hard to separate the marketing from the algo. To me they are both intertwined. If you look at the offline world, the 'algorithm' must be known by the executor. The front cover ad in a magazine, middle spread in niche newspaper, the prime-time ad slot on radio or television. You have to know how these parameters work together in order to make your efforts work. In other words, one must know how the 'offline algo' works in order to achieve branding or direct response objectives.

For me this also applies online and was never a separate entity. Your content outreach may drive clicks and visibility however, like it or not, when you are working online there is a third element. And search engines rule this domain. Not understanding how they work simply means you will never be able to maximize or know what coming, thus affecting your reach and also the bottom line.

I guess the idea behind RCS is based on the assumption that Google is doing a great job so there is no need to be thinking about the algo. However, this is not always the case and I totally agree that chasing the algo is a rather defensive tactic.

I don't think it is wise to blindly trust that a private organisation will do their best to crawl, index and choose which part of the human knowledge should be visible and which shouldn't. This sounds more like a type of totalitarianism, very similar to what George Orwell described in 1984.

As you said, Google controls far too much and I would add that we should always be on their back. Understanding what they are doing as well as the reasons behind their actions is really important for mainly political and moral reasons.

But, I rare hear about the usage of direct
marketing meanings with the moto “Life without Google”. What do I mean? As in
old good time we thrown out and gave away company’s flyers (even posters),
stickers with url (even in ‘public WC’ J) and so on. I still do believe that this is very important source of
traffic, especially for local businesses. In the same time, people who offer
digital goods and services around the world are really vulnerable against “we
want deliver to our users quality content”.

Thanks Dr. Pete for once again keeping us on our toes and thinking... With the size of Google of course we will never stop "chasing" the Algorithm. I know this is a little off topic but it got me thinking...While it sucks for us marketers to not have a simple steady formula for us to know what to do, it has brought about quite a bit of benefits. 1 being that it is harder for spammy webpages to rank on BS. Another major benefit is that it really has people thinking. You said the data you collected shows people are interested in this topic... This means that more people are 1) trying new things; people are finding what works best 2) huge amounts of data is being collected and studies; does social media affect it does this does that. 3) It's bringing many marketers together (even competitors) to share ideas and research; with a simple how to formula for SEO this blog post would not exist. Heck SEOmoz would not be the community it is (in my opinion).

I believe that the best line in your post, Pete, is when you say that a site must diversify its organic traffic sources. I've seen sites, which were depending on Google for the 80% of their traffic... and the other 20% was still Google, but Adwords.Yes, we usually and rightfully blame the cheap SEO solutions hired by those sites' owners, but I saw those same % in sites where the owner was "cooking" his own SEO.

That dependance, sometimes, is also the consequence of a profound ignorance and selfish complacency of the sites' owner... do you know, Pete, sometimes I think we blog too much for ourselves when we should start blogging more for the real people using Google.

"#90210 [project “Turkey Giblets”] We made some stuff better." Gave me a great laugh to start the day!I think this outreach is a poor attempt by Google to control the damage they have caused out there this year. This along with the pointless Matt Cutts videos. Seriously has he actually said anything to help any aspiring webmaster?Google's image is tarnished and probably irrevocably this year. Why? Because they have finally and irreversibly appear to have left the "Do no Evil" motto behind. Google 2.0 "We Do Evil".Forget about us SEO's and Serp chasers. We will move on find new clients etc etc. However there thousands of small businesses out there that have been destroyed by what they perceive as Google's grab for cash.Plenty of these small businesses did it to themselves by hiring bad SEO's or whatever but that doesn't stop a boss saying to his 10 employee's sorry but I have to fire you because Google has F*ed me! multiply that by 1000's and 1000's of times and you have not only a lot pissed off webmasters/business owners/SEO' bad mouthing Google but all those people that have been fired by those small business owners. The negative press is bigger than Google probably even suspects and like all these things it is mostly word of mouth.That is exactly what is happening out there this year. Google has affected more people around the world in a negative way than probably at any other time in it's existence. Whilst at the same time making record profits and surpassing Microsoft in Value. I have an architect friend that I see maybe 3 times a year. Last time we talked he was telling me how he is worried about his job, because his boss has fired lots of his other employee's. Then he goes on to start talking about how he thought Google works and how it has damaged his bosses site. Now most of the info he was telling me was completely incorrect, but he is an Architect for DR Pete's sake why is he even talking about Google's algorithm? I have already told you why, because Google is starting to affect him in a negative way. Google is in a short term cash grab and not really caring about the future. I am not even talking about algorithms/Pandas and Penguins here. I am more talking about shopping results, pushing big brands and the above the fold experience and all the other subtle things Google is doing to drive people and in particular the small business owner towards ads. I believe this drive for cash is due to a mix of paranoia and arrogance. Once upon a time Google was serenely happy in it's delusion that it IS the internet and then along comes another pretender Facebook who aspired to the same delusion! Google is now filling up it's war chest in an effort to ensure it's future. Ironically, it will be this effort to fill the war chest which will probably cause it to diminish in the future.

Thanks Dr Pete. Nice article. Still I would say that there is no need to stalk or chase the algo. Most of the times official reasons for updates have nothing to do with real Google intentions. I've seen so many good, trustable sites with brand development and content marketing investments, with natural shares dropping after the Google updates, and shitty sites, that bring no value staying and improving their positions. So better follow up the algo, know what is happening and use different tactics to be on the safe side. Experiment and see what is actually working. Do not concentrate on SEO only, invest in other traffic channels as a back up.

Working with lots of small businesses it's hard not to feel some disdain for the whole Penguin / Panda affair. Many small businesses have found an SEO supplier, handed over $X a month and seen their rankings, traffic and business improve so these companies must know what they are doing, right? These same companies have seen horrific problems in 2011 and particularly after the Penguin update.

On the other hand, as someone working under a white hat it can be frustrating to see folks winning with bull5h1t links over a good, honest approach (at least in the short term) so it's tough. Likewise am I any better for telling folks to go for a long term, content driven approach when the people buying links are sucking up all the business they are also chasing?

I am not sure if small businesses should 'chase the algorithm' - that implies they can get better marketing by living on the edge. Sure, if you have other streams of business, maybe a clean site, then you can go after some more questionable SEO from your edge sites but should you do this with your main site, I am not sure it's something I would recommend. Still, in the small business world, some of the idealism of large business SEO is not always practical.

How about chasing the guidelines? More and more with my clients and especially the folks I have picked up since the SEO earthquakes of 2011 and 2012 I have pushed the Google Guidelines and tried to make them understand the implications of breaking the rules. Tried to make them responsible and aware, informed customers, people who can ask serious questions and understand what they are paying people to do in their name. At least then they can make an informed decision, balance the risk and not end up with all of their eggs in one basket.

Ultimately, there is no right and wrong, there are no rules, this is the wild west, play the game however you want to play it, but just understand the rules of the game you are playing. If you are taking chances with the business that keeps your kids in shoes then for your own sake, understand the risks and play safe. If you are an SEO company that is taking these risks for another business without letting them know the potential risk / reward balance then, in my mind at least, that is not cool.

If you are a business owner - educate your self to the risk and make clever choices. If you are an SEO and you see a way to win but it's not exactly 100% pure as the marketing virgins Google would love us all to be, then educate your client, let them know the potential and the risks.

Great comment, marcusmiller. I've had sites struggling to beat a competitor for position 2 or 3 in Google, and when I research their links they are 99% junk. It's hard at that point to justify straight white hat. But with my own websites that choice is mine.

Business owners absolutely need to invest in understanding the strategies used by the SEO company they hired. Thinking risk/reward instead of right/wrong is important, and explaining it to your clients is a solid, transparent way to run your business. Good point.

Hey Chad, yep, if folks want to be aggressive and do what their competitors are doing, then... it can be done, it kind of makes no sense in a we copy them, they copy us back kind of way and the only winners here are the link vendors. What do you do when you are caught between wanting to build links that folks can't copy for your clients but your clients want to take the easy route. If I had a pound/dollar for every time a client has said "can't we just do that and get up there and then we can look at the other approach. It is hard in the small business space as there is not always the budget / belief to invest and do something that will make a difference.

I think 2013 will be the year backlinks became worthless as we know if from an SEO perspective. With too many following SEO experts down the path of paying for thousands of links per month. This post is great and more folks should know not to "chase" the algorithms,etc. Great article. Thanks, I'll share with my twitter followers.

Great post! Google has a monopoly on search for sure, having a competitor or two with a greater chunk of search share would definitely be a good thing. I guess the challenge in being transparent for them is that they don't want to show their hand and have people working to game them (chasing the algo) - basically the cat and mouse game that's been played for the last 10 years...